Louisiana House Bill HB395

Louisiana 2011 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/25/11
• Refer: 4/25/11

Caption

Appropriates funds for partial payment of judgment against the state in the matter of "Jean Boudreaux and the Victims of the Flood of April 6, 1983, on the Tangipahoa River v. State of Louisiana, et al"

Impact

The passage of HB 395 signifies a legislative commitment to address longstanding legal liabilities concerning state actions or negligence. By appropriating funds for the judgment, the state not only fulfills a legal obligation but also seeks to mitigate potential financial repercussions related to delayed payments. The bill's enactment is expected to have direct financial implications for the state's budgetary allocations, especially within the context of the fiscal year it affects. This may also set a precedent for how future appropriations for similar judgments are handled.

Summary

House Bill 395 authorizes the appropriation of funds from the state general fund to settle a partial payment of a judgment awarded to Jean Boudreaux and the victims of the flood that occurred on April 6, 1983, in the Tangipahoa River. This bill stipulates that an amount of four million dollars, plus interest accrued from the date of the incident until the payment is made, will be allocated for this purpose. The legislation highlights the state's acknowledgment of its obligations arising from legal judgments against it, ensuring that those affected receive compensation for their losses.

Sentiment

The general sentiment surrounding HB 395 appears to be pragmatic, focusing on the necessity of addressing judicial outcomes rather than controversial policy changes. There seems to be a consensus on the importance of ensuring victims receive the funds rightfully owed to them, aligning with the principles of justice and accountability in governance. Lawmakers may express concerns regarding budgetary impacts but largely support the action as a necessary fulfillment of the judicial process.

Contention

Despite the administrative nature of the legislation, there may be underlying tensions regarding the state's fiscal responsibility and the potential for mismanagement of funds allocated for such judgments. Some legislators or stakeholders might question the adequacy of the amount being appropriated or highlight similar cases that have not been addressed, sparking discussions about equity in compensation for different groups of claimants. Overall, while there may be minor points of contention, the predominant focus remains on ensuring legal compliance and supporting the affected individuals.